Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: each call waits up to 240 seconds, does not trigger reprocessing, and should not be used to resubmit. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not detail timeout error handling or pagination-style progression.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds the operational constraints. There is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only job-status tool with an output schema, the description covers the input source, the waiting behavior, and the important no-resubmission/no-reprocessing rules. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single job_id parameter, including its source and the reuse rule. The tool description reinforces these semantics but does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: querying a Zhihu video speech-to-text task by job_id. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit tools by referencing job_ids returned by them and framing the operation as a query rather than a submission.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when a valid user-provided job_id exists or when a job_id was returned by a submit tool. It also gives a clear exclusion: do not resubmit or trigger reprocessing, which helps the agent choose this polling/query tool over re-submitting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.